Yeah, if there were more dismembered bare feet, sliced off ears, black people getting shot in the face, constant N-bombs, and human sex toys in boxes, it really would have softened that scene up a lot.

MrEricSir:What I get from this is that either Tarantino hasn't seen many films this year, or there just aren't many good ones this year. Or both.

What I get from it is that people are different. Not all "bombs" are bad movies. I haven't yet seen The Lone Ranger, but If I let box office receipts and critical reviews make my movie watching decisions, I'd miss some good films and sit through some total shiat.

TLR isn't your cup of tea(assuming that you've actually watched it, that is), but I'm going to wait until either Redbox or HBO to make my decision, and if Tarantino found stuff in it he liked, then good for him. At least someone had to buy a ticket to the damned movie...

Of course, there's every chance that it will be the shiat-pile that John Carter was, but once again, I came to my own conclusions regarding that movie...

RatMaster999:As bad as the last Batman film was (and all the ones previous to Batman Begins), at least none of them have been as boring as Inglorious Basterds was.

I enjoyed the shiat out of Djano, though.

Basterds was AMAZING. What a fantastic film. I have to disagree.

Batman can be interesting. He's a classic Byronic character. The problem is that there still hasn't been a movie that has even come close to addressing the psychological issues that Batman has in even a remotely interesting way. Batman '89 was fun, but it was more like a Burton movie that just happened to have Batman in it. Returns was meh. Forever was decent.

The Nolan films are pretty bad movies. Not bad in a B&R way, but poorly plotted and incapable of sufficiently exploring the ideas that it posits. The movies raise big questions ("Is intrusive surveillance okay if it really IS protecting us from nasty people that want to kill us?"), but it answers those questions with cop-outs ("It's okay if we intrude on everyone's privacy, but JUST THIS ONCE.").

So yeah, I'm waiting for a film version of something like B:TAS, which at least had a Batman that had some room for growth and self-awareness or something like the Arkham Asylum games which are pretty good at showing how the guys running the asylum (Batman, Quincy Sharp) are just as screwed up as the inmates in some ways.

Yeah I am just going to go ahead and remark on the emperor's nudity. QT is no cinematic genius. He has done some really good films. Some clearly in spite of himself. But he s not the cinema god he has convinced the hipster douche bags (himself included) he is.

Smelly McUgly:RatMaster999: As bad as the last Batman film was (and all the ones previous to Batman Begins), at least none of them have been as boring as Inglorious Basterds was.

I enjoyed the shiat out of Djano, though.

Basterds was AMAZING. What a fantastic film. I have to disagree.

Batman can be interesting. He's a classic Byronic character. The problem is that there still hasn't been a movie that has even come close to addressing the psychological issues that Batman has in even a remotely interesting way. Batman '89 was fun, but it was more like a Burton movie that just happened to have Batman in it. Returns was meh. Forever was decent.

The Nolan films are pretty bad movies. Not bad in a B&R way, but poorly plotted and incapable of sufficiently exploring the ideas that it posits. The movies raise big questions ("Is intrusive surveillance okay if it really IS protecting us from nasty people that want to kill us?"), but it answers those questions with cop-outs ("It's okay if we intrude on everyone's privacy, but JUST THIS ONCE.").

So yeah, I'm waiting for a film version of something like B:TAS, which at least had a Batman that had some room for growth and self-awareness or something like the Arkham Asylum games which are pretty good at showing how the guys running the asylum (Batman, Quincy Sharp) are just as screwed up as the inmates in some ways.

Maybe you can explain IB to me then. I just found it really slow and plodding, and I didn't give a damn about anyone's survival. I seem to either really like (Django, Kill Bill, From Dusk to Dawn), or really dislike (IB, Reservoir Dogs) his films. Pulp Fiction is the only one I'm in the middle on.

Tarantino's always been a bit of an oddball. But he's a man who loves his movies. If he loves a movie that critics panned, is he so different from the rest of us? I'm sure we all like a movie that Roger Ebert thought was a piece of crap. I know I'm probably guilty.

He might be right about Batman. I think the problem comes with live action adaptations of the character. Nobody really does the character justice. But the Tim Burton world of Batman was so gritty and insane that it reflected a lot of the comics. It was as close as we may ever get, the pinnacle of Batman films.

Yeah I am just going to go ahead and remark on the emperor's nudity. QT is no cinematic genius. He has done some really good films. Some clearly in spite of himself. But he s not the cinema god he has convinced the hipster douche bags (himself included) he is.

I don't think he ever set out to be anything more than a director of genre movies. But then, some critic read way too much into Reservoir Dogs, film snobs joined in the chorus, and the legend was created.

I can hardly blame the guy for putting on airs for those people while still doing the kind of movies he likes, which by and large seem to be a greatest hits list from a kid whose parents let him stay up to watch the late night double features.

He has to keep up his image to the cineistas, because they are the ones who hype his movies and keep the paychecks rolling in..

It's the world's worst-kept secret that Q.T. is one of Hollywood's most avid users of a certain type of plant. I wonder how "to the sky" he was when he saw it. I'm not judging him too harshly.. I went through a stoner period. I know that certain things seemed so much better when I was than when I wasn't.

TeddyRooseveltsMustache:I'm sure we all like a movie that Roger Ebert thought was a piece of crap. I know I'm probably guilty.

I looked up the first movie that came to mind. Ebert hated Speed Racer so much he takes digs at the source material: To us, this show was just filler between after-school reruns of "Gilligan's Island" and "The Munsters." We watched it because it was on